Literature DB >> 18365229

A comparative study of the audiological outcomes with Retro-X (semi-implantable hearing aid system) and conventional open fitting hearing aids.

Minoo Lenarz1, Thomas Lenarz, Martin Stieve, Mark Winter.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the results of hearing augmentation with the Retro-X semi-implantable hearing aid to a conventional non-implantable open canal hearing aid using the same software technology (Titan-X, auric Hearing Systems, HiKaNo.:13.20.03.0047). Nineteen subjects (20 ears) with mild to moderate high-frequency sensory-neural hearing loss were included in this clinical study. All the subjects were first fitted with a conventional open canal hearing aid (Titan-X). After a period of 4-6 weeks audiological evaluations were performed using standardized speech tests in quiet and noise. Subjective evaluation was performed with the help of standardized questionnaires. After this phase the patients received the semi-implantable Retro-X device under local anaesthesia and 4 weeks later were fitted with a hearing module with the same software technology as the conventional Titan-X hearing aid. Four weeks following the first fitting the same audiological evaluations were performed under similar conditions and the patients were evaluated again using the same questionnaires in order to compare the results of the Retro-X semi-implantable system with the conventional open canal hearing aid. Audiological evaluations revealed better results with the semi-implantable Retro-X in the adaptive speech in noise test; however, the results of the monosyllabic word test in quiet were similar for the Retro-X and conventional open canal hearing aid. The patients subjectively preferred the improved wearing comfort of the semi-implantable device. The Retro-X semi-implantable hearing aid provides better speech perception in noise and higher wearing comfort in comparison to the conventional open canal hearing aids. Considering the simple implantation procedure under local anaesthesia with low complication rate, Retro-X is an alternative to the conventional open canal hearing aids in patients with mild to moderate high frequency sensory-neural hearing loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18365229     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0618-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  15 in total

1.  Recognition of low-pass-filtered consonants in noise with normal and impaired high-frequency hearing.

Authors:  Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno; Jayne B Ahlstrom
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Genevieve C Alexander
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Translations of the International Outcome inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Dafydd Stephens; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Rehabilitation of high-frequency hearing loss with the RetroX auditory implant.

Authors:  P Garin; F Genard; C Galle; M H Fameree; J Jamart; M Gersdorff
Journal:  B-ENT       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.082

5.  Digital hearing aids for high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: preliminary experience with the RetroX device.

Authors:  Maurizio Barbara; Giorgio Bandiera; Bruno Serra; Vania Marrone; Silvia Tarentini; John C Pinna; Francesco Ronchetti; Marilena Graziadio; Simonetta Monini
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  Perceived sound quality in a hearing aid with vented and closed earmould equalized in frequency response.

Authors:  G Lundberg; A Ovegård; B Hagerman; A Gabrielsson; U Brändström
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1992

7.  The RetroX semi-implantable bearing system.

Authors:  M Winter; Th Lenarz
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2005-09

8.  Improvement in aided sound localization with open earmolds: observations in people with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  W Noble; S Sinclair; D Byrne
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Acoustic versus electronic modifications of hearing aid low-frequency output.

Authors:  R M Cox; G C Alexander
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1983 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Hearing aid benefit in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  S L Beamer; K W Grant; B E Walden
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.